On 25/02/2021 20:51, Norman Lynagh wrote:
I am sure that
some tipping points will be reached within the next couple of decades (probably
have already been reached in the Arctic) that'll be real 'wake-up' calls.

Things are happening fast in the Arctic

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

If the latest plot is to be believed, beware data revisionists at work,
was updated to 24 Feb yesterday , but not as dranatic down tick.
Still no update of Antartic data

--
Global sea level rise to 2100 from curve-fitted existing altimetry data
http://diverse.4mg.com/slr.htm

On 25/02/2021 20:51, Norman Lynagh wrote:

Denialist is rather a pejorative term with connotations. It is now used
for anybody that doesn't agree with either the narrative or somebody
else's opinions. It is used as an insult.

Norman, I studied environmental pollution/science at degree, masters and
doctoral level. And have been a professional environmental scientist for
over 20 years. I have met climate and environmental scientists from all
over the world with differing views on climate change.

The term 'climate catastrophe' is a fairly recent term and designed to
up the fear. It has become politicised. But there are several problems
with assuming a warmer world will be a catastrophic world. For that we
have to look to the past and the largest problem is the Eocene. During
this time CO2 levels were estimated to be double (or more) that of
today's and the Earth was ice-free. Life existed in far greater
abundance than it does now. Antarctica was covered in deciduous forests
and there very few, if any deserts. Coral reefs nearly stretched from
the Arctic to the Antarctic Circles. If you were a citizen living in the
Eocene and then you were transported to today's Earth, you would think
that a climate catastrophe had really happened. Large parts of today's
Earth struggle to support life in any abundance; rainfall distribution
is very patchy. Antarctica is effectively a dead continent except for a
little slither of life around its edges. Greenland is not much different.

When I bring up the Eocene paradox, some scientists acknowledge it puts
a big question mark over 'climate catastrophe' theory, others ignore it.
To me it is the same as dark matter/energy to theoretical physicists and
the 'great survivors' such as sharks, insects and turtles etc etc to the
mass extinction theory.

Whatever happens, the Earth will be just fine. What humankind will have
to do is adapt (which the richer countries will do well and leave the
likes of Bangladesh to drown). Oh, and say goodbye to most of the
world's major cities as they gradually disappear under the sea.....

A good book to read is Emerald Planet by David Beerling. He talks about
plants having caused catastrophic climate change in the past by taking
too much CO2 out of the atmosphere and plunging the Earth into ice-ages.
For most of its history the Earth has been warm, we still are in an
ice-age, just a slightly warmer one.

--
Nick Gardner
Otter Valley, Devon
20 m amsl
http://www.ottervalleyweather.me.uk

Nick Gardner wrote:

On 25/02/2021 20:51, Norman Lynagh wrote:

Denialist is rather a pejorative term with connotations. It is now used for
anybody that doesn't agree with either the narrative or somebody else's
opinions. It is used as an insult.

Norman, I studied environmental pollution/science at degree, masters and
doctoral level. And have been a professional environmental scientist for over
20 years. I have met climate and environmental scientists from all over the
world with differing views on climate change.

The term 'climate catastrophe' is a fairly recent term and designed to up the
fear. It has become politicised. But there are several problems with assuming
a warmer world will be a catastrophic world. For that we have to look to the
past and the largest problem is the Eocene. During this time CO2 levels were
estimated to be double (or more) that of today's and the Earth was ice-free.
Life existed in far greater abundance than it does now. Antarctica was
covered in deciduous forests and there very few, if any deserts. Coral reefs
nearly stretched from the Arctic to the Antarctic Circles. If you were a
citizen living in the Eocene and then you were transported to today's Earth,
you would think that a climate catastrophe had really happened. Large parts
of today's Earth struggle to support life in any abundance; rainfall
distribution is very patchy. Antarctica is effectively a dead continent
except for a little slither of life around its edges. Greenland is not much
different.

When I bring up the Eocene paradox, some scientists acknowledge it puts a big
question mark over 'climate catastrophe' theory, others ignore it. To me it
is the same as dark matter/energy to theoretical physicists and the 'great
survivors' such as sharks, insects and turtles etc etc to the mass extinction
theory.

Whatever happens, the Earth will be just fine. What humankind will have to do
is adapt (which the richer countries will do well and leave the likes of
Bangladesh to drown). Oh, and say goodbye to most of the world's major cities
as they gradually disappear under the sea.....

A good book to read is Emerald Planet by David Beerling. He talks about
plants having caused catastrophic climate change in the past by taking too
much CO2 out of the atmosphere and plunging the Earth into ice-ages. For most
of its history the Earth has been warm, we still are in an ice-age, just a
slightly warmer one.

No insult was intended, Nick. I fully agree with your penultimate paragraph.
The earth would get on a lot better without us humans messing things up.

I suppose my point is that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been
pretty constant ever since homo sapiens evolved, until very recently that is.
Over the past 100 or so years we have caused that concentration to rise by what
has become a very large amount. There's a lot of time lag but it seems
inevitable that a new climate equilibrium will eventually be reached that's
very different to what we have been used to. As someone (can't remember who)
said a few months ago - 'The planet we think we live on no longer exists'. I
would happily agree with that statement. Whether it will result in
'catastrophe' no-one honestly knows either way. My feeling is that it will
probably end up with hundreds of millions of climate-change related deaths and
a refugee problem of unprecedented proportions. Whether that is seen as
'catastrophe' or just an adustment of the life-balance on the planet is, I
suppose, a matter of opinion. I'll go with catastrophe. I can't be certain that
it'll happen but all the signs that I see seem to point in that direction.
Don't try to tell me in 30 years from now that I was wrong because I won't be
around to listen!

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
https://peakdistrictweather.org
Twitter: @TideswellWeathr

Nick Gardner wrote:

Denialist is rather a pejorative term with connotations. It is now used for
anybody that doesn't agree with either the narrative or somebody else's
opinions. It is used as an insult.

The term 'climate catastrophe' is a fairly recent term and designed to up the
fear.

I see a denier as being someone who denies that the Holocaust happened which resulted in the death of millions of people. I see climate deniers as people who deny that, if we not stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, the result will be the death of billions of people. Both types of deniers have no evidence that they are correct, only a strongly held belief.

Sir James Bevan is not the only one warning of this. So too is Sir David Attenborough:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/scienc...nment-56175714

On Friday, 26 February 2021 at 21:10:45 UTC, wrote:
Nick Gardner wrote:

Denialist is rather a pejorative term with connotations. It is now used for
anybody that doesn't agree with either the narrative or somebody else's
opinions. It is used as an insult.

The term 'climate catastrophe' is a fairly recent term and designed to up the
fear.

if we not stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, the result will be the death of billions of people.

That is an alarmist & almost certainly ridiculous statement, as extreme as anything a denier might come up with.

Sadly I think it's too late to prevent significant climatic change. The exact nature of these changes is very hard to predict, hence the need to minimise the effect we are having. Reducing CO2 emissions seems something of a lost cause, preventing destruction of the rain forests would seem easier, but mankind is totalling failing with that. It's all about damage management now. I've always been concerned how polarised & extreme many statements that are made are, on both sides, which doesn't help.

As a member of Greenpeace for decades I am deeply concerned about the damage we are doing to the planet. I joined after witnessing the devastation of the Torrey Canyon disaster, much of the oil appeared on the beach in front of me. Apart from the devastation caused (much by the detergent sprayed on it) the stench was awful.

My own personal view is that plastic pollution may end up being more devastating than climate change.

Graham
Penzance

Graham Easterling wrote:

On Friday, 26 February 2021 at 21:10:45 UTC, wrote:
Nick Gardner wrote:

Denialist is rather a pejorative term with connotations. It is now used
for anybody that doesn't agree with either the narrative or somebody
else's opinions. It is used as an insult.

The term 'climate catastrophe' is a fairly recent term and designed to
up the fear.

if we not stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, the result will be the
death of billions of people.

That is an alarmist & almost certainly ridiculous statement, as extreme as
anything a denier might come up with.

Sadly I think it's too late to prevent significant climatic change. The exact
nature of these changes is very hard to predict, hence the need to minimise
the effect we are having. Reducing CO2 emissions seems something of a lost
cause, preventing destruction of the rain forests would seem easier, but
mankind is totalling failing with that. It's all about damage management now.
I've always been concerned how polarised & extreme many statements that are
made are, on both sides, which doesn't help.

As a member of Greenpeace for decades I am deeply concerned about the damage
we are doing to the planet. I joined after witnessing the devastation of the
Torrey Canyon disaster, much of the oil appeared on the beach in front of me.
Apart from the devastation caused (much by the detergent sprayed on it) the
stench was awful.

My own personal view is that plastic pollution may end up being more
devastating than climate change.

Graham
Penzance

I have speculated that hundreds of millions might die, Alastair speculates that
the number would be billions. I wouldn't care to argue which speculation might
be nearer the mark but the potential number is certainly very large. Causes
would include broadscale redistribution of rainfall patterns impacting on
agriculture, flooding caused by increased rainfall, heat stress, sea level
rise, perhaps exacerbated by more frequent and more intense tropical cyclones
and the expanion of areas affected by TCs. I would love to be proved wrong but
I don't see that there is any potential for all of this to have a happy ending.
Those are my personal views and I accept that others will have different views.
None of us can be sure, at present, who will prove to be correct.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
https://peakdistrictweather.org
Twitter: @TideswellWeathr

On 26/02/2021 21:38, Graham Easterling wrote:
My own personal view is that plastic pollution may end up being more devastating than climate change.

Plastic pollution is a huge and global issue. It worries me far more
than climate change.

Habitat destruction around the world is now common place. The River
Otter suffers from flooding. Many reasons for this and one of them is
probably not 'climate change'.

Our rivers have been straightened and narrowed over 1000s of years for
farming instead of being allowed to meander thus accelerating flow and
bank erosion. River valleys have been cleared of trees and modern
farming techniques are compacting and reducing soil quality/capacity to
absorb water.

Global deforestation is our biggest crime against this planet.

At the last general election a policy was put forward to plant 2 billion
trees in Britain. It was widely ridiculed by the main stream media
including the BBC. That says it all.

We should be reforesting Britain, especially the uplands where the trees
will hold back water, releasing it slowly in the winter to prevent
flooding and this water reserve will prevent low river levels in the
summer (another problem).

--
Nick Gardner
Otter Valley, Devon
20 m amsl
http://www.ottervalleyweather.me.uk

On 27/02/2021 10:45, Nick Gardner wrote:
We should be reforesting Britain, especially the uplands where the trees
will hold back water, releasing it slowly in the winter to prevent
flooding and this water reserve will prevent low river levels in the
summer (another problem).

But they tend not to plant them on scree and cragg faces, choosing the
nice flat top peatland fells instead - wrong!
Acre for acre, proper peatland is a far better sink of C than forests
new or old.

--
Global sea level rise to 2100 from curve-fitted existing altimetry data
http://diverse.4mg.com/slr.htm

On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 5:17:02 PM UTC, G&L First wrote:
On Friday, 26 February 2021 at 15:42:59 UTC, Julian Mayes wrote:
It's not that that I disagree that the world is a warmer place or that mankind is very largely responsible for this, it's that the warnings seem rather hysterical, so much so that members of the public will tend to dismiss them. In any case not all the disruptive effects of flooding are due to increased rainfall; we can have a considerable effect on how this excess is dealt with and maybe some practices will need to change.

Tudor Hughes
That's a fair comment - I certainly flinch at some alarmist language and how it fuels denialism. Yes, it can be counter-productive. Of course, we don't know if the more melodramatic outcomes will actually occur, but we need to do what we can to mitigate future effects and to appreciate just how large the issues are. By 'large' let's start with the projections dealing with the North Atlantic overturning circulation - main story in The Guardian for a time y'day.....

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...say-scientists

Julian
But a 30yr reconstruction of AMOC shows no decline Julian.
It depends what time scale you want to look at.
Have you read this study by our oceanography experts at Southampton?
https://os.copernicus.org/articles/17/285/2021/

Len

I have read it now, Len, thanks! I was aware of a 'no decline' study, not sure if it was this.

Yes, different studies will come to different conclusions - as you state, study periods vary. Methodologies vary.

A shame that some will conclude that a particular study or conclusion is 'wrong'.

Julian

This thread has mentioned some academic studies and many people here have an academic or professional background in the subject, though with the internet the academic research has a wider readership. Good. But, I'm sure that to some extent even the academic specialists are prepared to revise their thoughts on global warming or flooding by personal experience and observation. This may sound subjective but I think it can force some of us to think again. An example for me is the effect of the high summer temperatures over recent summers in the part of the Uk where I live - SE England, namely moisture stress, also heat stress itself. There's plenty of evidence to show that the SE is warming faster than other regions - have a look at temperature anomalies for 2020, for example. Look at other years. The high temperature issue occurs not just in the famously warm summers (2018). If you are in central or some NW regions you may be shouting at me about intense rainfalls over the last 10-15 years - the point is that the location is different. The recent trend in summer rainfall in some areas is certainly contrary to model output - so far. The rise in temperature isn't.

This temperature change may be inevitable in the less maritime climate in these parts but it also fits with synoptic circulation patterns - namely, persistence of SW airflows (u trough over N Atlantic / u ridge continental Europe).

Julian
'these parts' = London / Surrey area.